RAVINDRA v. GHUGE & Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ. DATE
Legal Reasoning
*1* 904wp3964o10IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD904 WRIT PETITION NO. 3964 OF 20101.YADA MAHADEV SURVE (DIED) THROUGH LRS 1-A)VASANT YADAVRAO SURVE Age : 50 Age: Major, Occ: Agril,R/o: Limbachiwadi, Tq: Kaij, Dist: Beed.1-B)Bajrang Yadavrao Surve,Age: Major, Occ: Agril, R/o As Above.1-C)Vasant s/o Yadavrao Surve,Age: Major, Occ: Agril,R/o: Limbachiwadi, Tq: Kaij, Dist: Beed.2.Gangubaie w/o Digambar HaraleAge: Major, Occ: Household & Agril,R/o As Above.3.Narayan s/o Mugaji SangaleDied through LR's3A) Nathrao s/o Narayan SangaleAge: Major, Occ: Agril, R/o As Above.3B) Prabhu s/o Narayan SangaleAge: Major, Occ: Agril, R/o As Above.4.Pandurang s/o Mahadev Mane,Age: Major, Occ: Agril, R/o As Above....PETITIONERS *2* 904wp3964o10-VERSUS-1) The state of Maharashtra,Through its Secretary,Irrigation Department, Mantralaya Mumbai.2) The Collector, Beed,Collector Office, Nagar Road, Beed.3) Special Land Acquisition Officer No.1,Beed at Ambajogai....RESPONDENTS...Shri A.D. Khot, Advocate i/by Shri Bachate Pralhad D.,Advocate for the Petitioners.Mrs.V.N. Patil Jadhav, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3/State.... CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ. DATE :- 20th August, 2024ORAL JUDGMENT ( Per Ravindra V. Ghuge, J. ):- 1.Leave to add prayer clause in relation to challengingthe order dated 23.09.1997. Addition be carried out forthwith.2.Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heardfinally by the consent of the parties. *3* 904wp3964o103.The Petitioners have put forth prayer clauses C andC-1 as under:-“C)By way of issuing appropriate writ or directionin like nature the Land Acquisition Referencewhich is pending in the office of the respondentno.3 Special Land Acquisition Officer BeedNo.1 at Ambajogaie may kindly directed tosend in the court in four weeks.C-1)By way of appropriate writ or order in the likenature, this Hon’ble Court may kindly quashand set aside the order dated 23.09.1997passed by the Respondent Authority.”4.We have heard the learned Advocates for therespective sides.5.It appears from the affidavit in reply thatRespondent No.3/SLAO had received the application underSection 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 filed by thePetitioners on 19.08.1996, through Advocate V.L. Doiphode. TheSLAO has contended that since the court fees stamps were notdeposited, Advocate Doiphode was informed, vide the officeletter dated 17.05.1997, to deposit the court fees by 26.07.1997.The said letter is at annexure R-1. Since the court fees were notdeposited, Advocate Doiphode was informed by the SLAO thatthe application cannot be sent to the Reference Court. It is in this *4* 904wp3964o10backdrop that the letter dated 23.09.1997, was issued informingAdvocate Doiphode that the application for reference is rejected.6.This Court has settled the issue as regards theinsistence by the Authorities for depositing the court fees. Firstly,the application was misdirected to the SLAO and the sameshould have been filed with the District Collector by thePetitioners. Secondly, this Court has delivered the judgment inSambhaji Manaji Chate and another vs. The State ofMaharashtra and another, 2003 (2) Mh.L.J. 661, concludingthat a person preferring an application under Section 18, isrequired to pay court fees under Schedule I of Article 15 and it isappropriate for the Land Acquisition Officer to pass a conditionalorder on the application for reference and forward it to theappropriate Court. It was concluded in paragraph Nos.8 to 10 asunder:-“8. In view of the clarification given by the ApexCourt, it is clear that the person preferring anapplication under Section 18 of the LandAcquisition Act is required to pay the court fees,9. On perusal of Section 18 of the Land AcquisitionAct, it is seen that Section 18(1) entrusts to theSLAO a statutory duty to make reference on thefulfilment of the conditions laid down therein.Hence once the necessary conditions under Section
Legal Reasoning
*5* 904wp3964o1018 have been complied with by theapplicant/petitioners, the S.L.A.O. ought to haveforwarded the reference. A written applicationmakes it incumbent on the Collector to make areference provided that the necessary conditionsare fulfilled. The four essential requisites forreference under Section 18 are: (a) The reference is to be asked for by the partyaggrieved not accepting the award or has acceptedthe award under protest. (b) It must be an application in writing with arequest to make a reference. (c) It should contain the grounds of objection inclear terms. (d) The application was made within time.In the present case the petitioners havecomplied with all the essential requisites and thusthe S.L.A.O. ought to have forwarded theirapplication for reference to the Civil Court bygiving some time to the petitioners for removingthe deficiency regarding the payment of Court feeseither before him or before the reference Court.10. In view of the clarification given by the ApexCourt, it is clear that the person preferring anapplication under Section 18 of the LandAcquisition Act is required to pay the court fees.However, this amount could be remitted/depositedeven before the Reference Court and, therefore, itis appropriate for the S.L.A.O. to pass aconditional order on the application for Referencepreferred by the petitioners and to forward it to theCivil Court.”7.In view of the above, this Writ Petition is partlyallowed in terms of prayer clauses C and C-1.8.The Petitioners undertake to deposit the court fees *6* 904wp3964o10within 03 (three) months with the Reference Court. RespondentNo.3/SLAO shall forward the case papers tendered by thePetitioners under Section 18, to Respondent No.2/Collector,within 45 days from today. If the office of Respondent No.3 isunable to trace out the applications filed by the Petitioners,copies of the same, which are placed on record by the Petitionersfrom page Nos.12 to 37, shall be treated as the applications filedby these Petitioners. Each of the Petitioners shall tender aseparate affidavit in respect of these documents since thosewould be photostat copies on record. Thereafter, the ReferenceCourt shall decide the said proceedings within a period of 18(eighteen) months, provided the court fees are deposited by thePetitioners within three months from today.9.Insofar as the interest component is concerned,considering the order passed by this Court dated 06.07.2018 inCivil Application Nos.10476/2016 and 10477/2016, thePetitioners would not claim statutory interest from the date of theorder of dismissal of the petition till the order of restoration. Wefurther direct that the interest component would not be availableto the Petitioners from 23.09.1997 when the Reference *7* 904wp3964o10Application was rejected, till the restoration of this petition on06.07.2018, keeping in view that the delay has been caused bythe Petitioners and they cannot derive advantage of causing thesaid delay, by claiming interest from the State exchequer.10.Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms. kps (Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)